Mr. OWENS. Thank you. Thank you all for testifying. The next panel consists of Stephen Cohen, Sandy Gorski, Neil Eichorn. Mr. Cohen is not here, so we will take Lynda Hoffman. Ms. Hoffman, would you like to begin?

STATEMENT OF LYNDA HOFFMAN

Ms. HOFFMAN. Yes, thank you. To be honest, I am very tired of fighting for all the services and equipment that I need. And it gets harder and harder every year. The three areas I am going to talk about is employment, housing, and transportation and, if time, the present situation employment.

My first job was as a caseworker in the Public Welfare Department in Massachusetts. I was patronized and prevented from handling any difficult cases of consumers because my supervisors did not want to upset me. After all, I am—I was a social worker.

My next job was Social Security. That was even more discriminating. And after my first 700-hour position under the authority, I was terminated. And even personnel tried to help me out. But the regional commission

Mr. OWENS. You were terminated from Social Security, you say? Ms. HOFFMAN. Excuse me?

Mr. OWENS. You were terminated from Social Security?

Ms. HOFFMAN. Yes. And the regional commissioner told personnel, "Keep your fingers out of this one." I went to my Congressman and he got my job back. And they asked me to be a service rep at the teleservice center. They harassed me about my slowness, about my legibility-I had been only writing with my left hand for a few years-and about not coming up with my own reasonable accommodations. And, finally, I was prevented from upward mobility and lateral transfers and was even asked to come to two offices. That is when I decided to become an employment specialist for people with severe physical disabilities.

And housing? Are you aware that in elderly housing, where most handicap housing is placed, they do not allow children? My 15-yearold son, he was 15 at the time, had to be taken away-well, asked to live with relatives, I should say. To me, it felt like he was being taken away from me, especially as an adolescent. Who wants an adolescent? They are impossible to live with. And he was my responsibility. I may joke about some of these things.

Transportation. I used to be able to mainline service wherever I wanted to go, whenever I wanted to, however I wanted to go. I had no problems with jobs, et cetera. Now, I am stuck with the ride. And that is forcing me into a block of time: When I can go, when I can come. And I have to apply for transportation services a week ahead of time in order to get it. God forbid I want any changes. There is no such thing.

It was so bad this summer, I wanted to go into a long-term-care facility because I just could not handle it anymore. And then when Mass Rehab's funding was cut, both federally and State level, I knew employment was out of the picture because I needed services and I needed argumentative devices and equipment for a computer because I could no longer physically write. In my kind of profession, I need to be able to write. And there just is not any money.

And they do not have on-the-job transportation which would have provided me with a perfect job as home-service coordinator. But you have to be able to travel quite a distance, as far as Worcester. And, of course, the ride does not go there. That is it in a nutshell. [The prepared statement of Lynda N. Hoffman follows:]

PREPARED Statement of Lynda N. Hoffman

I have experinced discrimination due to my disability for most of my life. As a child and then in applying for college, I was denied appropriate education because "my disability would not allow me to complete the program". This was by the admissions interviewers in the mid 60's. I did eventually go to college, but not thanks to MRC.

My first job was as a caseworker for the Welfare Dept, where I was patronized, and prevented from holding difficult consumers because my supervisor did not want me upset at all. I was a social worker after all. My employment at Social Security was even more discriminating as even Personnel Department backed me up as much as they could. But the Regional Commissioner told them to stay out of it! Since this was only a 700 hour appointment under the U authority there was nothing I could do except go to Rep. Father Drinan who got my job back. I was asked to work as the Teleservice rep and I was excellent at the job. I was harassed about my slowness, about my legibility and about not coming up with my own reasonable accommodations. Finally I was prevented from getting lateral transfers or upward mobility. After three years, I left to get my Master's degree in Rehab Counseling to specialize in Job Preparation and Placement for the Physically Disabled.

It was at this point that my disability became progressive and within two years I was forced to turn to the Ride for transportation. I am a very spontaneous individual, especially when it comes to work and my social life. When there is extra time, I would like to go to work, etc. Transportation needs to be made a week ahead of time.

Housing is another story-Are you aware that childen are not able to live in elderly housing, but that is also where handicapped housing is? My son (15 at the time) could not live with me and had to live with relatives. Adolescence is a tough age and after all he is my responsibility.

Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission has been providing hit-or-miss services to me for 25 years-career testing, job placement, follow-up, appropriate IWRP, misinformaiton on services and equipment. The latest took place one year ago when I was determined eligible, but did not have an IWRP for three months. I was considered unmotivated and not able to make a commitment. I was forced to keep looking for a volunter position to justify the expenditure of funds on computer training. She was not too thrilled with my choice, and again dragged her feet some more until my CAP rep and/or an official at the Administrative Office called and demanded answers. We should have choices between Part A and VR. I also dread the future because the cut backs in funding is going to prevent my getting computer equipment and supportive services. I also lost the chance for a job because MRC does not pay for on-the-job transportation.

Employment appears to be very far off.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Ms. Hoffman.
Ms. Gorski.

STATEMENT OF SANDY GORSKI, PORTSMOUTH, NH

Ms. GORSKI. Mr. Chairman, recently, a couple of months ago, I went down to Portsmouth city hall and I was not able to register to vote, because I went down there to vote because I became a Portsmouth resident. And I had to sit out on the lift and get registered. They could not let me in. And I thought that was pretty discriminating against me. And I would like them to fix that if possible. It was cold that morning and I had to sit out on the lift to register for voting. And that was not to my satisfaction at all. And I think this needs to be addressed totally because if city hall cannot make it accessible, they are discriminating against us, totally. Thank you.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Ms. Gorski.

Mr. Eichorn.

STATEMENT OF NEIL EICHORN

Mr. EICHORN. Thank you, sir. You have heard many pieces of testimony today that is encouraging about the kinds of provisions that have been made. The discouraging side of the picture is that so often these assets that have been gained by the handicapped do not filter down to the lowest level at individual use. And that remains a tremendous discouragement. I will cite but one incident from my own experience in the deference of saving time.

I moved into a home that was not accessible because there were not, in New Hampshire, homes readily available that were accessible. I invested $9,256 in making that home an accessible place for me and for my family.

When that was reported to the board of selectmen, somehow that got translated into an increased cost of $11,450 with an exemption granted of $3,500 or a net cost of $7,950. That increased my taxes by about $250 a year.

Then we went through the magical mysteries of townwide reevaluation 1 year ago, in which our property which previously had been valued at a total of $29,323 including the $3,500 exemption was now determined to be worth $173,300, maintaining the same $3,500 exemption.

We went to the Board of Taxations for the State of New Hampshire and found in section 7237[a]:

Exemptions for improvement to assist the physically handicapped, every owner of residential real estate upon which he resides and to which he has made improvements for the purpose of assisting a physically handicapped person who also resides on said real estate is each year entitled to an exemption from taxation upon such residential real estate determined by deducting the value of such improvements from the assessed value of the residential real estate before determining taxes upon said real estate.

When in the process of reevaluating the entire town, they factored the value six times from $29,343 to $173,300. We asked that they understand that the value should have been proportionate with the exemption. To which we were informed: "It is our prerogative as selectmen to read value any way we so see fit. We see fit to determine that in terms of net cost, not current price." Exception denied.

This is what happens to many incidences. It is a small incidence that represents perhaps a $500 tax bill a year, $45 a month. But for many of us, $45 a month determines whether we make the grade financially or do not. It is not an easy thing today to raise a family of four on $738 a month. That is what I am faced with.

When people cannot comprehend even clear-cut English the frustration level becomes great indeed for those of us trying to survive without being any further of a liability than we have to be. Thank you for hearing this and other concerns of this nature, sir.

Mr. OWENS. You do not mean they could not comprehend-it was the law that they should deduct or exempt up to the same amount of the cost of the improvement to accommodate your condition. That was the law?

Mr. EICHORN. That is correct.

Mr. OWENS. So, they just violated the law.

Mr. EICHORN. That is right because they say:

It is our position to be able to interpret that as we see fit. We see fit to determine it in terms of actual out-of-the-pocket expense and not value. That is what value means to us. And so long as we choose to interpret it that way unilaterally, our decision will be to deny you further exemption.

There is something wrong with law when it permits our officials to interpret it to their own guidelines and not to a standard set to everyone.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Eichorn and Ms. Gorski. The next panel is Sara Bloor, Susan Downie, and Nancy Blackmoor. Are Ms. Bloor and Ms. Blackmoor here?

Ms. BLOOR. Yes.

Mr. OWENS. Please begin, Ms. Bloor.

STATEMENT OF SARA BLOOR

Ms. BLOOR. My name is Sara Bloor, and I have epilepsy. Two years ago, I applied for a job in Newton, MA, in a position as an educator in an urban setting. I had an interview over the telephone and then I was asked to fly down to Boston for a second interview in person. At that time, I spoke to the school director, a personnel committee, and the board director.

At that time, I revealed that I had epilepsy, though I knew at the time I legally did not have to share my health information with them. But I needed them to know that at the time I could not drive. At the time, I was also a resident of Wisconsin and Wisconsin had tougher driving laws than out here.

My seizures were under control and I thought that in the other jobs I had had, revealed my epilepsy and I have worked with children and that it would not be a problem. And it is something I do not mind disclosing.

At the end of the interview, they told me they would let me know about the job. They also told me that there was no problem with my epilepsy. And I had also explained to them how I have dealt with children with working with epilepsy.

Well, I never heard from the director when I was supposed to. So, I finally called them back and they said they needed a little bit longer to decide as another candidate had come into the picture. And I said, fine. And they would let me know on Saturday.

They called me that Saturday at the scheduled time and told me they could not hire me because of my seizures. At that time, I called the director back and asked what it was about my seizures he could not hire me for.

He did not know anything about epilepsy to begin with. He did not know what to do in case someone had a seizure. So, I reexplained what people do when you have seizures or that I was under control and that I was willing to let them talk to my doctors to find out and to make sure that I was seizure free. Which he did and he told me he still had not hired anyone for the position and that I had gotten excellent recommendations from my references and I was the person they wanted to hire.

He took it back to the board. Ten days later they decided again they could not hire me because I had epilepsy and that my seizures would get in the way, even though I had been seizure free.

At that point, I sued against this program for discrimination. I have won the case and it was settled in March, this past March after almost 2 years. It is still hard today to look for employment. I do hold jobs and my seizures are still under control. I do drive. I do what everyone else does. I just take precautions in what I do. But I always still have that fear that someone is still going to reject me against my seizures. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Sara Bloor follows:]